On Child Sponsorship
Rob Radtke, the president of Episcopal Relief and Development, has started a rather interesting discussion of child sponsorship on his blog. Although this method of fundaraising is effective (see my earlier reflections on Peter Singer's book, The Life You Can Save), there are several reasons why such an approach is not ideal.
Radtke offers four reasons for pause: 1) The focus should be on communities, not individuals; 2) Sponsorships run the risk of commodifying children; 3) Such a model is not sustainable and can create a relationship of dependency; and 4) Motives are often mixed (Radtke asks, "Do we want to do good or do we want to feel good?").
ELCA World Hunger, like ERD, does not offer a child sponsorship program, for many of the reasons that Radtke lists as problematic. I should be clear, too, that I am personally uncomfortable with the idea. That said, I would like to push back a bit on the arguments against child sponsorship. I will do so by asking questions. I hope to spur some conversation so please feel free to comment and offer your insight.
First, what does it mean to say that the focus should be on communities? Effective agencies like ELCA World Hunger and ERD are effective precisely because they focus on communities. Would our work be seriously hampered if we generated support for individuals while still maintaining our commitment on the ground to communities?
Second, is commodification of children really a risk? If so, how? Maybe I trust too much in the benevolence of aid agencies and people who sponsor children, but is there really a sense that these kids are purchased or owned? Would an aid agency that uses this model really be so self-interested that it would see kids as a means to its ends? I understand how this may be a threat, but is it real or simply perceived?
Third, the sustainablility issue looms large. But is not this a threat to all our work? Aren't all our projects dependent upon sustained interest and support? As to the dependency issue, are the communities supported by child sponsorship somehow more dependent than the communities supported by other means (like our Good Gifts)?
Fourth, is there really any truly altruistic deed? Mixed motives abound in all forms of philanthropy. Even finding joy in giving out of the right motives is a mixed motive.
I write these questions partly as the devil's advocate, partly as a pragmatist. The fact is that there is a lot of need out there and child sponsorship can be an effective tool for mobilizing people and resources. How often does wanting to do it right lead to inaction? (And yes, I know that action ill-conceived can do far more harm than no action at all--but I really don't think that will be a problem for ELCA World Hunger.)
David Creech
Photo (c) 2009, Chris Mortenson
Labels: child sponsorship, giving
posted by David Creech |
3 Comments:
The problem of third-world hunger is huge and unapproachable; it's very easy to do nothing because anything we could do seems so insignificant compared to the enormity of the problem.
Taking care of a child, on the other hand, is relatively easy. I do that for two kids at home, actually, so it's easy for me to see that my $39/month actually does help Edna in Tanzania. I understand that she needs a self-sufficient community capable of caring for her more than she needs a stranger to send her money, but that's a bigger problem than I can solve at the moment.
Also, having a face to attach to the idea of poverty is very helpful to my own young daughters -- I don't think they would understand sending money to a village or group of people, but they definitely understand helping out a little girl far away.
That being said, giving to an individual got me "in the door" with giving. When I increase my contributions in the future, I will probably put my money into something more systemic. So maybe child sponsorships work after all?
I am intrigued by the fourth point - motives. Rob Radtke's original blog talks about motives in this way: "Fourth, who benefits from sponsorships? If we’re really honest, what is our prime motivation? Do we want to do good or do we want to feel good?"
I want to lend my opinion that it is a blessing in disguise that doing good also feels good. I believe that we are called to help our neighbors and the greater family of God, but if there is a little personal gain along the way, I don't think that it is necessarily a bad thing. As humans, we like to do what feels good, and if that action helps another, then praise God!...Because we will probably do it again :)
chase--thanks for your thoughts. I agree that having concrete, specific objectives spurs giving. And I vaguely recall the following aphorism (or something like it): "How do you consume an elephant? Bite by bite." You also raise the important question of where people are developmentally--how much do they know, and what will motivate them to action.
BTW, since you're in to biking, have you been following the Tour de Revs (www.tourderevs.org)? Three Lutheran pastors criss-crossing the US for 100 days on a bike built for three.
Lana--there is a bit of an ascetic assumption in Radtke's critique, isn't there? I think you're right--having a sense of fulfillment and joy from service is not a bad thing.
At the end of the day, I think folks like ERD and ELCA World Hunger should be careful about the programs we support. There is the side of mobilizing people and motivating to action and there is the side of making sure your actions are as responsible (and effective) as possible. Maybe Radtke's solution made in his comments is the right way forward--not that your gifts support THIS child, but that your gifts support A child.
Alright, my response is already too long. Keep the thoughts rolling in!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home